Scrum Master Choices – Professionalising the Mentor Stance, Part 2: Consent
Prior to reading this blog, please read the introduction to this series here.
Consent is not simply a procedural step. It is not a one-time agreement. It is a continuously negotiated space that determines whether mentoring is even appropriate. In the professional mentor stance, consent is the baseline condition that turns proximity into relationship and experience into something...more. Without it, mentoring is not just ineffective, it is unethical. Think about that for a moment; it is unethical to mentor or try to improve someone without their explicit consent to be part of the process.
In some organisations, the Scrum Master is known as supporting role rather than a leading, or initiating one. This framing, however well-intentioned, erodes the principle of consent because it invites assumption. Over time, it leads to unsolicited advice, obligatory conversations, and a subtle crossing of boundaries. Professional mentoring does not begin with “I know what you should do.” It begins with “Would this be useful?” And more importantly, the mentor accepts the answer, whatever it is.
To professionalise this aspect of mentoring, Scrum Masters need ways to examine their own practice. Below are four behaviours that distinguish professional mentors who respect and manage consent. Each offers a question that may be useful for your reflection.
1. You recognise that consent is relational, not transactional.
Consent is not granted once. It is affirmed again and again through interaction. A professional mentor notices tone, timing, and context. They pay attention to who initiates a conversation and how the conversation unfolds. They do not rely on past roles or former receptiveness as justification for present involvement. A Developer who welcomed input during the last Sprint may not want it now. The person may be in a different mood, facing a different pressure, or simply wanting space.
Ask yourself: Have I mistaken a history of positive mentoring for a permanent invitation to advise?
2. You invite mentoring instead of offering it.
This is more than semantics. An invitation to mentor is an act of humility on your part. It signals that you are willing, but not assuming. Phrases such as “Would it help to talk this through?” or “Would it be useful if I shared something I’ve seen before?” demonstrate deference. They create an easy option for the participant to decline, and in doing so, strengthen the integrity of the interaction. Even when a request is made, you check the scope: “Do you want my personal view on this or are you just looking for options?” This small act of precision deepens the quality of consent.
Ask yourself: Do I offer mentoring before I’ve been asked? Do I know how (and when) to hold back?
3. You accept when consent is withdrawn.
There is a temptation to preserve influence. A team member who once relied on your guidance may suddenly become distant. They may no longer seek your input, or they may politely redirect your involvement. This is not failure. It may be growth. A professional mentor does not press for relevance. They do not reassert access through other channels. They step back, protect the dignity of the mentee, and wait. Influence gained ethically must also be relinquished ethically.
Ask yourself: Can I release someone from a mentoring relationship without interpreting it as rejection?
4. You acknowledge when mentoring is not yours to give.
Sometimes, a person asks for guidance that you cannot or should not offer. It may involve a conflict of interest, an area outside your expertise, or a pattern of overdependence. Professional mentoring includes the capacity to say no. This is different from dismissal. It is a form of respect. “I think this is important, but I’m not the right person to help you with it.” Or, “It sounds like you’ve started to rely on me for decisions you could make.” These statements reflect a mature stance. They reinforce that consent is not only about the mentee’s choice, but also the mentor’s judgement. A mentor needs to ensure that the mental burden of their personal experiences remain with the mentee.
Ask yourself: Have I ever agreed to mentor when I shouldn’t have? What stopped me from declining?
Examples from Practice
With a team I worked with a few years ago, a Product Owner regularly asked me to “sense-check” their Product Backlog items. The relationship began with informal support asking for tips and strategies but grew into a pattern. Over time, I began offering opinions on Product Backlog ordering, structure, and even stakeholder messaging. What started as my helpfulness became pseudo-ownership. The Product Owner's consent had morphed into assumption on my part. The Product Owner was no longer seeking mentoring. They were deferring. I had drifted from an initial, supportive enabler to dominant co-pilot. Rese
tting this dynamic required pausing our routine, naming the pattern, and re-establishing better boundaries: “Would I be more helpful to you if I stepped back and just listened to your thoughts?” In this case the mentor-mentee relationship shifted towards coach-coachee (which is not an uncommon pattern).
In a different situation where I was an observer, a Developer new to Scrum asked their Scrum Master for ongoing support with sizing of work. The first few sessions were helpful. By the third week, the Developer was showing less interest. The Scrum Master recognised the signals. Rather than chase engagement, they ended the session with, “You’ve probably got what you needed. Let’s pause this for now. If anything changes, just say.” Within two weeks, the Developer came back with a question about facilitation. The relationship resumed, but in a different area, and on the Developer’s terms.
Final Reflections
Consent is not a soft concept. It is the foundation of ethical mentoring. It reminds the Scrum Master that their role is not to be ever-present, but to be respectfully available. It requires awareness, humility, and the discipline to see every mentoring moment as provisional. In doing so, it makes the stance more powerful.
To professionalise consent is to practice restraint without retreat, invitation without expectation, and involvement without assumption. It is to understand that access to someone’s thinking is a privilege, not a duty. And that such access, when granted, must be handled with care.
In the next post, we will turn to Safety. Because even when consent is clear, if the environment is not safe, learning cannot take root.